As the circuit courts continue to define the pleading standards for fiduciary breach claims challenging investments in defined contribution plans, the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court’s finding that a group of 403(b) plan participants failed to state such a claim.  In Davis v Washington University, plaintiffs alleged that plan fiduciaries breached their ERISA fiduciary duties by maintaining a mixed array of retail and institutional share classes in the plan’s line up and including three specific investment options in the plan that underperformed and cost more than other allegedly comparable funds available on the market.    The district court dismissed the claims entirely.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ fund-by-fund challenge of fees and performance finding that the complaint alleged no meaningful comparators and instead pointed to funds with different structures, strategies, and management styles.  Even with proper comparators, the Court held that minimal fee differences (here, between .06% and .11%) between the funds in the plan and comparators would not be sufficient to state a claim.  However, the Court reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim based on including retail share classes in the plan.  Recognizing there could be lawful reasons for the fiduciaries’ conduct, the Court emphasized that inferences must be drawn in favor of the plaintiffs when reasonable, and the allegations that lower-cost share classes existed and that the plan had the buying power to invest in them stated a claim at the pleading stage.

The decision illustrates the importance of fiduciaries’ regular review of the fees charged for investment options in defined contribution plans and communication of those fees to plan participants, as the defendants, in this case, were able to secure early dismissal of many claims against them by pointing to disclosures about the investment options and the minimal fee differences between the plan’s funds and comparable funds.  We are available to advise plan administrators about the implications of this case on their plans.  Please contact a team member or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work if you have questions or need assistance.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Lindsey H. Chopin Lindsey H. Chopin

Lindsey H. Chopin is a principal in the New Orleans, Louisiana, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a member of the firm’s ERISA Complex Class Action, Employee Benefits and Class Action groups.

Lindsey focuses her practice on the defense of complex ERISA class-actions…

Lindsey H. Chopin is a principal in the New Orleans, Louisiana, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a member of the firm’s ERISA Complex Class Action, Employee Benefits and Class Action groups.

Lindsey focuses her practice on the defense of complex ERISA class-actions filed against public and private single employer ERISA plan sponsors and fiduciaries, as well as multi-employer plans and fiduciaries and ERISA plan services providers. She has litigated a wide variety of class action claims, including 401(k) fee claims, stock drop claims, defined benefit mortality assumption claims, “church plan” and “government plan” claims, health and welfare plan claims, and ERISA Section 510 claims. Lindsey also litigates ERISA benefit claims and claims involving non-ERISA plans.

Lindsey is the author of several ERISA-related articles, including an article focusing on ERISA fee litigation that appeared in the Benefits Law Journal, and is a frequent speaker on ERISA and class action litigation issues, including e-discovery best practices and ethics and professionalism when using social media in litigation. She is a senior editor of Chapter 15 of Bloomberg BNA’s Employee Benefits Law treatise and a contributing author to the ERISA Fiduciary Answers Book and Chapter 39 of the sixth edition of Bloomberg BNA’s ERISA Litigation treatise published in November 2017.

Prior to joining Jackson Lewis, Lindsey practiced complex ERISA litigation for five years at a large, national firm and served as a one-year term clerk for the Honorable Carl J. Barbier in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

While attending Loyola University School of Law, Lindsey was the articles and symposium editor of the Loyola Law Review and received the “Best Casenote Award” for her casenote analyzing the impact of Kasten v. St. Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1 (2011), an FLSA matter decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Prior to attending law school and practicing law, Lindsey was a teachNOLA fellow and taught high school French in New Orleans’ public schools.